Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday June 29, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Akahele/Omidyar venturing out (view source)
Revision as of 17:13, 22 October 2010
, 17:13, 22 October 2010Comments
<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Omidyar and Branson, <a title="Creative Commons 2.0" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Omidyar_Richard_Branson.jpg" target="_blank"><span class="comment">Attribution 2.0 Generic</span></a>.</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Omidyar and Branson, <a title="Creative Commons 2.0" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Omidyar_Richard_Branson.jpg" target="_blank"><span class="comment">Attribution 2.0 Generic</span></a>.</span></li>
==Comments==
9 Responses to “ Omidyar venturing out ”
Comments RSS
Jon Awbrey
Greg,
Just wanted to say “Thanks!” for yet another intelligent, well-researched piece on the complicities, er, complexities of the business world that boggle the brain of a simple-minded math-muncher like —
Yours truly,
Jon Awbrey
Dan T.
Their website is a .com rather than a .org, which implies that the for-profit arm dominates the nonprofit one.
Anonymous
There certainly is more to this deal than meets the eyes–and don’t expect anyone in the Foundation to open their mouths. Little birds have told me more, but I’d rather not disclose exactly what right now.
Somey
Pierre Omidyar’s eBay shares are worth billions, so $2M isn’t a huge expense for him, but for the Wikimedia Foundation it’s at least another year or two of “safety” from their having to carry advertising on Wikipedia in order to stay afloat. Various people (including Jimbo Wales) have suggested that it would be “pointless” to buy a seat on the board of a non-profit, non-revenue-producing organization. But when you’re the dominant force in an important market (like eBay is with small-time online retail and private auctions), helping to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a potentially major advertising venue for your competitors is probably worth at least that much.
Wikia, OTOH, already takes advertising, so for them there must be some other reason – possibly having something to do with collectible lunchboxes.
Gregory Kohs
And it would appear that the Austrian faction is also cognizant of the underlying basis for Omidyar Network’s existence.
Gregory Kohs
Interesting to note that this blog article and its author were mentioned by The Wikipedia Signpost of September 14, 2009. You’d think that one of the editors of that article would have contacted us for comment, but no such luck.
Prashanth
Hmm…well researched blog. I appreciate it. Wandered here from a discussion somewhere in the hinterland of wikipedia’s bureaucratic red tape.
One would always like to imagine that WP will not succumb to the same ills that plague most organisations committed to public good, but depending on private money. I was sure, it was bound to happen….naivete to expect otw.
That said, it is very disheartening for me as a WP editor of many years to learn this. Hmpf…
hilarious
I love two things about this: first, that it is somehow evil for a major donor to place someone on the board of trustees of a charity (no, actually, that’s perfectly normal). Second, that as soon as it’s published the Legion of the Banned happen along to sing your praises. Funny stuff!
Gregory Kohs
Nobody said it was “evil”. I’m just asking them to label it for what it is — a seat was purchased on the board of trustees. End of story.
That you’d find “hilarious” a desire to have a purportedly transparent organization be more honest about what is plain to the eye may say more about you than about me or any legion of banned Wikipedia editors.
